Healthy Communities Water Supply Act of 2007

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Texas, for yielding the time and compliment her and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for developing this legislation and preparing it and bringing it so early in the session to the House floor. I also appreciate the bipartisan cooperation with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the ranking member of the full committee, and it is good to have the gentleman from Arkansas on the floor and managing the bill. I thank the gentleman for his ever thoughtful approach to legislation.

This alternative water sources initiative is not something that we developed in the course of this Congress. It started way back in 2000, in fact, earlier than that, as the committee held hearings over a period of several years to raise the visibility of issues of water supply and groundwater withdrawals and needs of communities well off into the future.

In fact, I should point out that a former colleague of ours, later Speaker, Jim Wright, in 1958 wrote a book entitled, ``The Coming Water Famine,'' where then new Congressman Wright gathered enormous amount of data about water usage by industry, by agriculture, by homeowners, and did a calculation that showed the rising use of water intersecting with a line of steady availability.

All the water there ever was, there ever will be, is available now. We will not create new water, and he showed that in the 1980s the lines would intersect, and that, at that point, the Nation and the Congress need to face up to the need to assure the continuity of availability of water supplies, that continued withdrawal of water from the Ogallala aquifer that covers west Texas and eastern Oklahoma, a huge area of the central portion of the United States, could not continue forever. That water would be withdrawn, and there would be no further water available, just simply was not replenishing as fast as surface needs were drawing upon it.

That was the background. That was the stimulus for the alternative water

sources program that our committee included in the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000, which passed the House, the Senate and was signed into law.

The legislation was developed to address the concerns by communities all across the country over availability of water to meet their future requirements, especially in the more arid regions of the country, as we have already heard from the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney) and Mrs. Tauscher, also from California, who was the initiator of this legislation in previous Congresses.

I have read a great deal about climate change that followed the enormous amount of scientific data pouring forth from the international geophysical year by the United Nations scientific panel, scientists in the U.S. who are reporting on global climate change, and the effect that it is having upon weather and the increasing volatility and variability of the amount, timing and distribution of moisture, not just rainfall but moisture that comes in the form of snow or freezing rain. There is consensus among the climatology scientific community that the timing, intensity and duration of floods, droughts and high- intensity storms are going to continue to plague us over the decades ahead.

Pressure for additional sources of drinking water, usable water for industry and agriculture will only grow and magnify across this country, putting greater pressure on reclamation, on reuse, on advanced wastewater treatment, and even on desalination, as many countries in the world are doing.

In the 1970s, there was an experiment by a Saudi prince who chartered a vessel to go to Antarctica and harness an iceberg, put a huge plastic wrap under that iceberg so it would not melt and had it towed by tug boats to a point off the shore of Saudi Arabia. Then they drilled a hole in the center of it and pumped the water out for several years to bring fresh water to Saudi Arabia. There are not going to be very many icebergs left to be towed as the polar caps melt faster than we can harness the icebergs.

Furthermore, that experiment proved enormously expensive. It also demonstrated that there is a considerable amount of loss of iceberg water capability as the 'berg is towed.

We have to do much better than just towing icebergs. We create with this legislation a modest start on a program to help communities provide for their current needs, for household requirements, industrial needs, for agricultural uses of water, well off into the future.

This is but one important step in the long-term effort we must make to ensure the availability of water supplies and the viability of those water supplies off into the future in this time of highly uncertain climate conditions.

The gentleman raises a very important issue, one that has been of deep concern. He raises two aspects of a question, one that raises deep concern among communities along the Great Lakes who do not want to see waters of the Great Lakes pumped west to quaff the thirst of arid western States.

Several years ago, there was a proposal for a coal slurry pipeline to bring coal in a slurry pipeline from the Powder River Basin to the western end of Lake Superior to ports of Duluth and Superior; and we vigorously opposed it, because that pipeline, if it pumps east, can also pump west and could suck water out of the Great Lakes in vast amounts.

Mr. Chairman, subsequently, in a Water Resources Development Act, I succeeded with legislation to prohibit any withdrawals from the Great Lakes unless there is unanimous agreement among the eight Governors and the Province of Quebec and the Province of Ontario. That language is current law, but it is not strong enough. It really needs to be reinforced. Now that I am in a position to do that, we are going to reinforce it.

The second concern of the gentleman is private companies profiting from the public sector provision of water supplies, and I think we should find a way in which we can limit the profiteering while not interfering with private sector developments.

For example, the little town of Buhl, population 900 in my district, has on its water tank the slogan, ``The Finest Water in America,'' and the city began bottling that water for sale. They are using their open resources to bottle this water in these little 8-ounce and 16-ounce bottles. I wouldn't want to prevent Buhl, which has fallen on hard times, from drawing on its resources. But they are using their own money to do that.

What the gentleman is concerned about is a public, federally funded process that might stimulate the private sector. I commend the gentleman for his concern, and we shall work together to address the situation.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I appreciate the fashion of the gentleman from Georgia, and I respect his consistency. He offered the same amendment yesterday. We had quite a thorough and extensive discussion and a recorded vote, which ended 166-260.

Again, I appeal to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that we are dealing with an authorization. Tomorrow we will be dealing with a different bill that does result in a direct spending reduction as determined by the Congressional Budget Office and for which the committee created an offset and reduced the size of the bill.

This bill, H.R. 700, is not a direct spending bill, and has been so verified by the Congressional Budget Office and by the Office of Management and Budget. It is not subject to the so-called PAYGO rules. An appropriation subsequently could well be subject to PAYGO, but we have yet before us the congressional budget process. We have to vote on a budget, and then we consider the appropriations. If this legislation is enacted in time for the appropriation process, hopefully it could be considered and included, and then there is a question of whether it is subjected to the PAYGO rules.

But in its present form, this is an authorization. It is not a direct spending. It is not subject, as Congressional Budget Office has ruled, to the PAYGO rules. And we made that point yesterday. We make it again today. And I rise in opposition to the amendment, but not in opposition to the approach of the gentleman, who is a true fiscal conservative and wants to ensure that dollars are wisely spent and that we are not overspending.

I assure the gentleman, this legislation, modest as it is in its scope of dollars authorized, will be subjected to the

rigorous oversight of OMB, Congressional Budget Office, procedure and the appropriation process in its new course.

The gentleman from Texas, a member of the Rules Committee, and I had a discussion about the principle involved in the gentleman's amendment in the course of our presentation at the Rules Committee for the rule covering this bill. As a result, the gentleman has offered an amendment that I think is entirely appropriate. But the point at which we are in the consideration of the legislation, and given the time it might take for the other body to act on it, would create a time frame problem through fiscal 2008. I would suggest that the language be changed to reflect two fiscal years from date of enactment, so that we have a precise time but that it is linked to date of enactment of the act, which then would be a very appropriate way to do it.

I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful presentation and the questioning in the Rules Committee, and we will draft language in cooperation with the gentleman and include that as we move forward to conference with the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Both gentlemen offer an amendment, Mr. Chairman, to our bill that is well intentioned to respond to the needs of small communities, to assure that communities under a population of 10,000 are not left behind, as this program is administered. And I certainly am in consonance with that concern.

There are only maybe four communities in my congressional district that have population greater than 10,000. I think of Big Fork, population 950, and others of similar size who have needs for water resource as great proportionately as do the major metropolitan areas.

In fact, in a drought in 1988, Minneapolis was trying to encourage the Corps of Engineers to draw down the head waters of the Mississippi River to increase the flow to Minneapolis while at the same time not banning car washes, not banning sprinkling of lawns, not taking other water conservation measures and also drawing water from the Jordan Basin Reservoir underneath the Twin Cities, a 50-mile diameter basin that is water left over from the melting of the glacier 10,000 years ago, water that can never be replaced because it is an impermeable area.

And I said, oh, wait a minute. It just happened I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight; called the Corps of Engineers in and made sure they didn't draw any matter down from the head waters of the Mississippi River to serve the thirst of Minneapolis while at the same time St. Paul was incorporating water conservation measures.

Well, I cite that history to show that I am really sensitive to these needs. But we do not want to create in this legislation a preferential consideration. And when the gentleman says consider, when the language of the amendment the gentlemen are offering says consider, I take this to mean a factor to be considered, along with other relevant factors and not a set-aside and not a preference.

May I ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), and I yield to the gentleman, to be assured that he concurs in that interpretation.

I thank the gentleman. Let me ask the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler) whether he shares that viewpoint.

Mr. Chairman, when I was elected to Congress, took office in 1975, we formed a Congressional Rural Caucus. There were 250 members. We had a voice on this floor, and a presence on this floor. Today there are less than 90 of us representing primarily rural areas, so we do have to be watchful for small towns, rural areas. And in the spirit of our discussion just concluded, I will accept the amendment of the gentlemen.

Mr. Speaker, although I am not opposed to the motion, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment was offered yesterday by a different gentleman from the other side. I just want to read from the legislative language in the act.

Subsection F: Uses of Grants. ``Amounts from grants received under this section may be used for engineering, design, construction and final testing of alternative water source projects designed to meet critical water supply needs. Such amounts may not be used for planning, feasibility studies, for operation, maintenance, replacement, repair or rehabilitation.'' Although we do not specifically prohibit use of funds for lobbying, no such authorization is permitted. Nonetheless, the gentleman proposes to close a potential opportunity for money to be diverted, and, therefore, we are prepared, as yesterday, to accept the gentleman's motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 700, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from Louisiana, and I want to commend Congressman Camp from Michigan for being a stalwart in this area. It has taken us a long time, a few years. We have had bipartisan support in the past, Mr. Chairman, but we aim to put closure on this at this time.

Mr. Chairman, the EPA estimates that the Nation's wastewater infrastructure will face a funding shortfall of between 300 and $400 billion over the next 20 years. That should give us pause because of all the work and help from both sides of the aisle in protecting our waterways.

I am very proud to rise today in strong support of this bill, the Water Quality Investment Act, H.R. 569. I want to thank Mr. Oberstar, chairman of the Transportation Committee, and, of course, Ranking Member Mica and Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Baker for helping to get this bill on the floor.

Congressman Camp and I have pursued this issue for many years, as I have said, in order to authorize the wastewater infrastructure funding that our cities and towns so badly need; and, Mr. Chairman, I might add, there are 30 mayors in the House. We need a little bit of that mayor persuasion and touch to deal with a lot of problems that we face on this floor, both domestically and internationally. The mayors know every day what they face on 24/7 and in the community, every community, be it large or small. Because you cannot see something, people forget about how significant it is.

I also want to thank Congressman Capuano and others in this worthy endeavor.

H.R. 569 has garnered co-sponsorship from both sides and was unanimously

voted out of committee and was even reported out of committee during the past two Congresses for the simple reason that combined sewer overflows and sanitary soil overflows affect millions of people in each and every State in the Union. We are talking about affecting the lives of over 40 million people here in what we are doing to today.

The United States' antiquated wastewater infrastructure is deteriorating. State and local governments are often unable to stop sewage and untreated waste from flowing into the streets, into basements, into rivers and into lakes. So all the work that we have done on making our water clean is being undone if we do not attack these two major problems.

Combined sewer systems found mainly in older cities are one source of these overflows. A total of 772 municipalities throughout America would serve these 40 million which I just spoke of.

My home State of New Jersey has 31 combined sewer systems, water, sanitation coming together at over 200 discharge points throughout the State. Many of those discharges, including several in my own town of Paterson, New Jersey, flow into the Passaic River, a heavily polluted waterway in the heart of my district.

Sanitary sewer systems often overflow as well, releasing untreated waste into our environment, closing our beaches, we have been famous for that, too, New Jersey, and contaminating highways, waterways and drinking water supplies. In 2003, New Jersey closed over 30,000 acres of classified shellfish growing areas due to a large sanitary sewer overflow.

Upgrading these sewer systems is extremely expensive. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the total cost of repairing the combined sewer systems in America will be about $51 billion. The price tag for fixing the U.S. sanitary sewer systems hovers around $89 billion. We are talking about $140 billion.

As a former mayor, I know that wet weather issues are one of the most pressing issues facing urban America. Cities are doing their best to increase capacity and upgrade facilities with the resources they have, but they need our help.

Most communities with combined sewer overflow problems have fewer than 10,000 people. They cannot afford to impose more fees and taxes upon struggling residents who have borne the vast majority of costs associated with sewer overflows. If we impose a Federal mandate demanding clean water, we must follow up with the Federal ability to pay.

As the spring rains loom on the horizon, we cannot let small communities throughout this country shoulder this tremendous burden alone.

This bill authorizes $1.8 billion for Federal grants from the EPA over a 5-year period. Although it is only a drop in the bucket compared to what we really need, it should provide some relief to our municipalities; and it sends a signal that we really mean business this year and that we are doing that business on a bipartisan basis and that that is the only business we should be about on the important problems facing Americans.

I want to wholeheartedly thank the Speaker and the majority leader and the rest of the House leadership for addressing legislation this week that will provide immeasurable benefit to communities throughout this country to help have clean, safe water for their residents.

I applaud Chairman Oberstar for his leadership and wish to express my constituents' sincere gratitude for his action on this important issue. This truly has been bipartisan legislation. This is what we talk about and so infrequently implement.

So I thank the minority side, the majority side, wherever that line is, who knows, and I say this is a good piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), respectfully, to withdraw this amendment. And if I may just take a few moments.

The pay-as-you-go rule, which was adopted by the House of Representatives, presents consideration of bills that affect direct or mandatory spending as we know it, or revenues, unless the measures also contain offsets, as I am sure my friend from Georgia knows.

Direct spending includes funds for entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Employee Retirement and Unemployment Compensation and other programs that you and I, I think, would consider mandatory. All other spending in the budget is referred to as the discretionary spending, which is provided in and controlled by the annual appropriations process and is not subject to PAYGO. That is why the Congressional Budget Office has stated that this legislation does not trigger the PAYGO rule. CBO says, this is not direct spending, so it is not applicable in this legislation.

Now, I think your point is that maybe we ought to put everything under the same umbrella, but then you are going to have to change every authorizing program in the Congress.

This is a reauthorization. We are authorizing a program that already exists. The original authorization was signed into law in fiscal year 2001 in the omnibus appropriations bill. We are going to offset each and every reauthorization we consider in the House? I don't know if that is the direction you want to go in.

This majority, the Democratic majority, and we are talking about a bipartisan bill here, voted out unanimously in conference, this majority has instituted strong PAYGO rules, pay as you go. We are taking fiscal responsibility very seriously.

Nonetheless, neither this bill nor any other reauthorization bill falls under House PAYGO rules; and I wanted to make that clear.

The fact is that this is too critical a program, and I don't sense the sense of urgency here. This is too sensitive an issue, too urgent an issue to jeopardize with attempts to score a political point, as the gentleman from Georgia is attempting to do, I believe, if he considers to move forward. Failing to prevent sewer overflows will result in more sewage, more toxins, more debris making the way into our waterways and drinking water.

We have worked on both sides of the aisle for so many years to clean this mess up. What legacy do we leave to our children if we don't do this?

It is our duty to prevent beach closures, shellfish bed closures, contamination of drinking water and other environmental and public health concerns that result from sewer overflows before it is too late.

I would ask my friend from Georgia if he would consider not asking for a vote on this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

As far back as the 108th Congress, the committee considered and favorably reported this bill to address the urgent and mounting needs of comprehensive wastewater infrastructure. A visionary on the committee and leading the charge on this legislation was our former committee member, Mr. Pascrell, the gentleman from New Jersey, who spoke earlier. He and Mr. Capuano, the gentleman from Massachusetts, urged upon the committee a vigorous program of reinvestment in the Nation's wastewater infrastructure needs. The committee, in fact, in the 108th Congress considered and favorably reported this bill with total bipartisan support.

Regrettably, it didn't reach the House floor in the 108th Congress. It wasn't reported from the committee in the 109th Congress. The needs have only grown. They have worsened. In those areas of the gulf stricken by the Katrina and Rita and Wilma hurricanes, the needs are crushing as the gentleman from Louisiana can well attest.

So we have moved again expeditiously in the committee to bring this bill to the House floor. I thank all those who have participated: the gentleman from New Jersey; the gentleman from Massachusetts; especially the Chair of our Subcommittee on Water Resources, the gentlewoman from Texas; and the gentleman from Louisiana who is now managing the bill on the Republican side. These are serious, urgent problems, combined sewer overflows.

The administration in their statement of opinion on the bill sort of suggests that this is not a national problem. We settled that issue in 1956, that clean water is a national problem when my predecessor, John Blotnik, authored the very first legislation, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments 1956, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower. Every President since then has acknowledged the need for the Nation to address the problems of clean water in our rivers, the tributaries to those rivers, the lakes, the estuaries and the saltwater regions of coastlines of the United States and the Great Lakes.

The vast majority of cost in cleaning our Nation's wastewater falls on the shoulders of local communities, local ratepayers, with some participation from States varying from one State to the other, and now through the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund.

We have felt that, as the committee that originated this legislation, that led the charge for the Nation to clean up the Nation's rivers, lakes and receiving waters of all types, to leave a heritage for those who come after us of clean water. This investment we make today, that will, I am very confident, quickly be considered by the other body, and I am quite confident will be signed into law by the President, will move us along the way toward that goal of meeting the Nation's need for clean water.

As is stated in the opening paragraph of the Clean Water Act of 1972, the purpose of the act is to establish and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of the Nation's waters. With this legislation, we make a down payment on meeting that objective.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The gentleman from Iowa has made a very thoughtful presentation and offers an amendment that is founded on some logic of the previous history of the legislation, and suggests that we proceed at what he considers a Consumer Price Index rate of increase over the previous legislation, 2002 bill. If the gentleman is prepared to accept success, we will accept his amendment.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I read with interest and puzzlement the gentleman's amendment that requires offsetting decreases in spending of the Federal Government, such that the net effect of this act does not either increase the Federal deficit nor reduce Federal surplus, of which we do not have one at this point.

We have inquired of the Congressional Budget Office about the language of the bill. The legislation before us, H.R. 569, does not include direct spending. The Congressional Budget Office estimates in their statement included in the committee report language: CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would cost about $1.45 billion over the next 5 years, which should be less now with the King amendment, and an additional $0.35 billion after 2012, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. Enacting the bill, CBO says, would not affect direct spending or receipts.

So I think the gentleman's amendment, while well intentioned, goes beyond the purpose of PAYGO. It would apply if we were taking money out of the highway trust fund. This is direct spending, although the highway trust fund is a different matter because there is already an antideficiency provision, you cannot spend more than the highway trust fund has in its account; and it is managed in a different manner.

So, we do not have direct spending authority in the legislation. And, therefore, the gentleman's amendment is not applicable, is not valid, and I would oppose the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman if he would like to respond.

Reclaiming my time, adopting the amendment would create a false impression that we in fact have created a direct spending authority in the legislation. And the gentleman is perfectly within his rights to offer such an amendment on direct spending legislation, for which I would have no objection, but in this legislation, it creates the false impression that we are in fact creating direct spending authority when in fact we are not. And, if adopted, it would create an unacceptable and invalid precedent.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully oppose the amendment. I would appreciate it if the gentleman would withdraw the amendment and not have a recorded vote on it, but he is certainly within his rights to proceed further on it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

May I make another attempt with my colleague?

If I may make another appeal to the gentleman from Georgia. In the bill that we will consider on Friday to replenish State revolving loan funds, we submitted the legislation to the Office of Management and Budget and to the Congressional Budget Office. Both came back and said there is a possibility, not the possibility, there is the reality that local governments will float municipal bonds to match and to repay the cost of the loan from the State revolving loan fund. Those municipal bonds will result in a reduction in Federal revenues. Therefore, you must create an offset.

We then, taking that direction from CBO, reevaluated the bill in a bipartisan fashion. We reduced its authorization number from $20 billion to $14 billion, the period of time from 5 to 4 years, created the offset for the $14 billion.

Mr. Chairman, I asked unanimous consent that the gentleman may be given two additional minutes so that I might yield to the gentleman from Georgia for him to respond.

Having made that presentation, if I may yield to the gentleman from Georgia for his response.

I explained the situation with H.R. 720, the State Revolving Loan Fund, Mr. Chairman, so that the gentleman from Georgia would have understanding and confidence that the committee has done its homework, has acted responsibly on the matter of offsets where there is direct spending or where there is a reduction in Federal revenues.

We submitted H.R. 720 to review by CBO and the Office of Management and Budget. Both were of the opinion that there would be a reduction in revenues if municipalities issue municipal bonds and that those municipal bonds will be tax exempt and therefore a reduction in revenues.

The distinction between that legislation and this is that there is no direct spending involved. There is no resulting responsibility on governments to take action that would result in a reduction in revenues, nor is this an appropriation. It is not a direct spending. And, therefore, it is not subject to the PAYGO rules.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise with a very simple amendment, an amendment of responsibility.

As you and the House know, H.R. 700 grants $125 million for alternative water source projects. It is a program that Congress has never funded, may be a very appropriate program. For some in this Chamber, $125 million may not be very much money, but for folks in my district, and I suspect for folks around this Nation, $125 million is a lot of money.

And, again, while what this bill does may be very important, it is important that we also make a statement for financial responsibility. This amendment would apply the principle of pay-as-you-go, pay-as-you- go to any new spending that would be authorized in this legislation.

Very simple: If you are going to spend money for this project, you ought to make it a priority and identify an area where you desire to take that money from in order to pay for this project. It is a concept that has been embraced by many in this Chamber. In fact, many Members on the majority side embraced the pay-as-you-go project in their campaigns this past year. In fact, the New Direction for America, which was proposed by the majority party in the 109th Congress, says, ``Our new direction is committed to pay-as-you-go budgeting. No more deficit spending. We are committed to auditing the books and subjecting every facet of Federal spending to tough budget discipline and accountability, forcing the Congress to choose a new direction and the right priorities for all Americans.''

Mr. Chairman, I agree with that. It is a wise idea. We ought to follow that. We ought to follow that in this new Congress.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I would respectfully suggest that, unless adopted, then the new direction in which we are heading is one that will take us in a direction of greater red ink and not that of financial responsibility. So I offer this simple amendment, this PAYGO amendment to H.R. 700, and I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding. I will be very brief.

I rise to point a couple points of clarification. And I appreciate the gentlewoman from Texas and her comments, but she did say that this amendment would require finding $120 million of offsets somewhere else, regardless of whether there was any money that was ever authorized for this particular grant project. In fact, that is not the case.

On line 4 of the amendment, it says that, ``any other provision that results in costs to the Federal Government.'' So it would require that the Congress had determined that, yes, there should be money spent for these grant projects, and then the equal amount of offset money would need to be found.

I understand this is an authorizing piece of legislation; it is not requiring the money to be spent; and that we have the Appropriations Committees to do that.

But I would suggest to my colleagues that this is a matter of principle. It is a matter of principle, and it is a matter of making the statement now that we believe that, if we are going to spend money for this project and we believe that it is a priority, that we ought to find the money elsewhere in order to cover that so that we do not increase the deficit.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its current form, I am, yes, sir.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer this motion to recommit. And I am more pleased to commend my Democratic colleagues for yesterday's recognition of the motion to recommit. They will recognize today's because it is exactly the same motion.

I think with that recognition came the realization and appreciation that motions to recommit are, indeed, substantive moves and they are substantive proposals of policy by this House of Representatives.

This motion to recommit is one about honesty; it is about honesty in the provision of the funds in the bill that is about to be adopted.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit would reinforce existing Federal law by making it clear that none of the funds authorized under this act may be used to lobby or retain a lobbyist to attempt to influence Federal, State or local governmental officials. It would also expand upon existing law by specifically prohibiting Federal funds from being used to pay for membership in any association or organization. And, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, many of those dues rise to the sum of $48,000 to $50,000 or more. The funds should only be used for the purposes intended by Congress, namely, identifying alternative water source projects.

And while associations and organizations provide meaningful opportunities for collaboration and knowledge dissemination, it would not be appropriate to use hard-earned scarce Federal tax dollars for such a purpose. Such a diversion of these funds would not only limit the amount of funds available for the actual use and construction of alternative water source projects, it could indeed constitute an end run around the lobbying restrictions since many of these associations engage in lobbying activities.

In recent years, Mr. Speaker, growth in population and increasing environmental awareness is causing many communities to explore alternative water supplies through reclamation, reuse and conservation. And while the Clean Water Act construction grants prior to 1991 and State revolving loan funds since 1989 have been available for such activities, most expenditures to date have been for more traditional wastewater projects and not for enhancing water supplies through wastewater reuse and water recycling. For these compelling reasons, we need to ensure that all available resources provided through this reauthorization are used specifically for the purpose of building and improving alternative water source projects for municipal, industrial or agricultural uses in areas that are experiencing critical water supply needs.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to recognize what they recognized yesterday, and that is that motions to recommit are substantive policy motions. I urge the adoption of this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Blunt, the minority whip, for yielding.

On Monday the House will meet, Mr. Speaker, at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour business and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. There will be no votes before 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour business

and noon for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of those bills, Mr. Whip, will be available later this week.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m., and on Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m.

On Wednesday King Abdullah of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan will address a joint meeting of the House and Senate.

We will consider under a rule several important pieces of legislation from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that will help clean our environment and create jobs: H.R. 700, the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act; H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act; and H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment Act. We also will take up the committee funding resolution.

I think that is our expectation.

I don't know. It is being worked on, and I don't know when that will be available.

I don't want to make a representation because I don't know the answer to that and don't want to misrepresent it.

I really don't. But I want to make two observations. First of all, we are 100 percent of the number of open rules that we had in the last Congress where we had one. We have now had two.

With respect to open rules, I know that, in talking to Mr. Frank, he intends to bring some bills to the floor under an open rule. And we have been urging Members to have, if not open rules, structured rules. As you know, we have had some structured rules contemplated as well, offering amendments, allowing, obviously, amendments from your side as well as from our side.

And we want to make sure that we have the opportunity to consider views from both sides of the aisle. So we hope to do that. I cannot represent to you how many open rules there are going to be.

And I understand what the gentleman is saying about the fact that these bills were supported by large numbers, and in the latter case by all Members, but that doesn't mean that they were necessarily perfect. And amendments were offered, as the gentleman knows, and we took 7 hours, I believe, on the one that was of very little controversy 2\1/2\ or 3 weeks ago.

Unfortunately, I don't have the record of the last 12 years right in front of me.

I was thinking that was probably the case.

Having said that, it is Mr. Spratt's hope, and he is working towards meeting those deadlines.

Now, as you know from experience, the plans, as difficult a process as putting together a budget is, sometimes do not meet expectations. However, I will tell you that it is my intention and Mr. Spratt's intention to try to meet those deadlines. And at this point in time we are scheduled to meet those deadlines.

That is correct.

We, of course, on this side, call it the Hastert rule, because after you criticized it roundly for a long period of time, you adopted it.

Let me say seriously; there is no alternative to increasing the debt limit. Both sides pretend that there is. There is not. The administration, if the debt limit is to be extended, is going to request a level to which they would like it increased. Frankly, your side of the aisle, you were not here at the time, I tell my friend, but regularly voted against increasing the debt limit, almost unanimously, in large numbers. It was obviously an effort to try to make it appear that our Members alone were responsible for raising the debt. That was not an honest representation, in my opinion, because we passed bills with Republican votes which resulted in that, whether they were appropriation bills, tax bills, whatever economic bills they were.

So in answer to your question let me say this: We obviously adopted your rules, as you recall, at the beginning of this session. So rule XXVII was a rule that you had in place at the time that you were in the majority. We adopted your rules, and we are pursuing that under those rules.

I think my friend is correct on that. And that is why I started my remarks with really the Congress, if it is going to be responsible on either side, Republican or Democrat, has a responsibility to set the debt limit so that the United States of America meets its obligations, whether it is to our own people on Social Security, whether it is meeting a payment on our debt to foreign countries, whether it is simply funding our government and keeping services to our veterans and everybody else that we vote to give services to, we need to do that.

I agree with you. And I would hope at some point in time, frankly, both parties can get together and say look, this is something that we need to do. And frankly, whether it is the Gephardt rule or the Hastert rule, essentially that is what both sides were doing so that it could not be, I don't want to say demagogue, but misrepresented as agreeing that we ought to have that debt level.

Now, I think almost everybody disagrees with the rate at which we have been going into debt, and the fact that we have borrowed 94 percent of our operating funds that we have borrowed from foreign governments over the last 6 years. I think there is probably nobody that thinks that is a good policy.

But the underlying policies that drive that are really what is at issue.

But I agree with the premise of the gentleman that both sides of the aisle have tried to hold the other responsible for the debt. On our side, frankly, we disagreed with the fiscal policies that were being pursued, which, as you know, we think took us from a $5.6 trillion surplus to now a $3 trillion deficit in the last 6 years. We tried to make that point through that vote. But the gentleman's basic premise I think is absolutely correct. There really isn't an option of when we get to the debt limit, we either ought to stop spending money, reduce very substantially our entitlement obligations, or we have no alternative but to raise the debt.